BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Expert Help for OG Question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

Expert Help for OG Question

by mundasingh123 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:09 am
Please, explain your answer. Thank you,
-----------------------------------------

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.

A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food's having a longer shelf life
B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has
C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods
D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is
E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded
Is this a weakening question
If Yes doesnt A also weaken the conclusion that Irradiation is no worse than Cooking by doubting the credibility of the Proponents of Irradiation.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:45 am
mundasingh123 wrote:Please, explain your answer. Thank you,
-----------------------------------------

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since _______.
Objective: Irradiated food is no worse than cooking is misleading.

A. many of the proponents of irradiation are food distributors who gain from food's having a longer shelf life

"Many proponents" does not mean "All proponents". Not all the proponents are food distributors.

B. it is clear that killing bacteria that may be present on food is not the only effect that irradiation has

What kind of effect? Are the other effects good or bad? We don't know.

C. cooking is usually the final step in preparing food for consumption, whereas irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods

Longer Life of Irradiated food compared to Final step of consumption does not lead us to any conclusion.

D. certain kinds of cooking are, in fact, even more destructive of vitamin B1 than carefully controlled irradiation is

Types of cooking is out of scope.

E. for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded

Left out after POE. This actually makes sense. Irradiated food cooked then it is more lacking of vitamins as per option E.

Correct Answer is E .
mundasingh123 wrote: Is this a weakening question
If Yes doesnt A also weaken the conclusion that Irradiation is no worse than Cooking by doubting the credibility of the Proponents of Irradiation.
Yes, type of weakening question. I agree A is weakening but it would have been full proof when mentioned "ALL proponents are Food Distributors".

for Option E you can think of 3 kinds of foods--
1. Irradiated + RAW
2. Irradiated + Cooked
3. Cooked

We know irradiation and cooking both lose Vitamins then which one will lose the most out of the above mentioned 3 foods?
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: New York City
Thanked: 68 times
Followed by:37 members
GMAT Score:780

by Adam@Knewton » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:14 pm
mundasingh123 wrote: Is this a weakening question
If Yes doesnt A also weaken the conclusion that Irradiation is no worse than Cooking by doubting the credibility of the Proponents of Irradiation.
This is, in many ways, a Weakener question, because you're asked to supply counterevidence, but because of the way it's constructed you are pointed directly to the exact piece of the Argument you're supposed to weaken, and how: not only are you supposed to show that the the negative effects of cooking do not justify the negative effects of irradiation, but you are told that the correct answer will show why this is "misleading". Thus, something the generally weakens the reliability of the given evidence, such as A, would not suffice, and the correct answer is in fact E because it states that, despite the ill effects of cooking, irradiation makes things even worse when the two are combined.

Furthermore, I'd stay away from any choices like A on the actual test. I've never seen a real GMAT question where the Weakener was, in some way or another, "The evidence is unreliable/biased." The GMAT focuses on the logic and scope of the Argument, not on the credibility or on how convincing an Argument seems in context. That is, even if A were true and you, as a consumer, would doubt this Argument, it doesn't make it less logical, just less believable, and this is not the kind of Weakener that will ever be correct on the GMAT.
Prep Smarter, Score Higher
www.knewton.com
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:28 pm
thanks Adam for the Reply but i have come across some CR questions that draw conclusions based on a sample survey and the correct answers have happened to be something that undermined the credibility of the Survey
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: New York City
Thanked: 68 times
Followed by:37 members
GMAT Score:780

by Adam@Knewton » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:11 pm
mundasingh123 wrote:thanks Adam for the Reply but i have come across some CR questions that draw conclusions based on a sample survey and the correct answers have happened to be something that undermined the credibility of the Survey
Hmmm... I'd love to see them. I've seen Weakeners that undermine the survey with something about its sample being skewed in such a way that would affect the Conclusion (such as, "The examiners only studied fruit flies who had been exposed to radiation"), but never something that only attacks our subjective trust of the study (such as, "The scientists were all paid by a large pharmaceutical corporation). However, I freely admit I have not seen every GMAT CR question in existence, so I could be wrong.
Prep Smarter, Score Higher
www.knewton.com
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:42 pm
Adam is correct. It is one thing to undermine the survey itself. But to attack the credibility is something called "ad hominem" which means to attack the person and this is not the correct answer on any kind of critical reasoning.

You often see it in politics however! One person will offer a particular bill and rather than discuss the bill his opponent will say that this person has done this or that. It seems to work in politics but never on the GMAT.

I am sure I have not seen every question ever written for GMAT CR either but I can say that Adam is exactly right.

By the way Shovan - for the reasons stated above I do not think that A would be a good choice even if it said "ALL proponents."
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1